you could be found guilty of offence of moneylaundering. What we are trying to do is to bring this law on lines of laws that are commended by FATF and all countries have obliged to bring their laws on the same lines. I just want to point to some of my friends that this Bill was passed in 2002. In 2002, we felt that these provisions are sufficient. In the working of the law, we found that the provisions have certain problems. We amended it in 2005. We amended it in 2009. We still find that there are some problems. The FATF has pointed out some problems. And, we are amending it in 2012. It is not finding fault with anyone. All I am trying to say is that this is an evolutionary process. Laws will evolve in this way, and we are amending it again in 2012. A few questions were raised. These are very pertinent questions and I will answer them very briefly. Firstly, both, Mr. Satish Chandra Misra and Mr. N.K. Singh, asked me about the ‗burden of proof‘ and whether we have, in effect, given acceptance to the recommendations of the Standing Committee that we have made a distinction in the ‗burden of proof‘ so that it does not fall heavily on persons who are not charged with offence of money-laundering. If you look at the original section in the parent Act, section 24, when a person is accused of having committed the offence, the burden of proving that the proceeds of crime are untainted property shall be on the accused. This was a drastic provision. Simply by an accusation that he had committed an offence of money-laundering, the burden of proof was shifted to the accused. He may not even be charged at that time. This was what we found to be an onerous provision and an unfair provision. And, what we have now done is to tone down this provision. In (a) and (b), you asked me as to why (b) was there. Now, (a) and (b) will make a distinction. In (a), there is a person charged with the offence of money-laundering — the principal offence under the Act. In (b), it is any other person who is brought before the Court. Therefore, in the case of (a), we maintain the rigour of the section. We borrow from the Evidence Act, ‗shall presume‘, and ‗shall presume‘, as you know, means that the court shall regard that the fact is proved unless it is disputed. So, we maintain the rigour of the section. But, we use the well-accepted phrase ‗shall presume‘. In the case of any other person, we borrow the phrase ‗may presume‘; the court may presume, may not presume and evidence to the contrary can be let off. So, we have now made a distinction between a person charged with the main offence of moneylaundering, and persons who are charged with other offences because, as you know, under sections 43 and 44, all other offences shall be tried by the same court which tries offence of money laundering.
